Religion, American Society, and the Supreme Court
Marc Cooper, contributing editor of The Nation, had a thought provoking op-ed column in the Los Angeles Times this morning. In it, he argued that the next justice to the Supreme Court shouldn’t be a Catholic or a Jew, nor should it be a Lutheran, Methodist, Evangelical, or Presbyterian, or Muslim; rather it should be an atheist.
Citing the Founding Fathers’ suspicion toward organized religion, especially of Thomas Jefferson’s, Cooper argued that “having an atheist justice, however, would not primarily be a matter of identity politics and some sort of equal representation. Rather, a nonbeliever justice would be a mighty blow in favor of the secular principles of ‘reason and freedom’ of which Jefferson spoke.”
States’ Rights and the Doctrine of Nullification: Parsing Law from Politics
Last week, I wrote a blog in response to a recent New York Times article that described the ways state legislators are using the language of states rights' to challenge the overweening power of the national government. In my blog, I argued that states rights' activists are fighting a fruitless battle against federal authority because they are using the 10th Amendment--which is poorly equipped--to wage their epic struggle. Instead, I suggested that they need to focus on repealing the 17th Amendment, which calls for the direct election of senators. Only by reconstituting the selection of senators from out of state legislatures, I argue, can states rights' be protected from the encroachment of federal authority.
This week, historian Sean Wilentz wrote a fantastic piece in The New Republic outlining the "historical amnesia" present across the nation with regard to "America's long, sordid affair with the states rights and the doctrine of nullification"--that is, the idea that state legislatures have the legitimate authority to nullify federal law within their own state borders.
Texas's Low-Wall of Separation: Thomas Aquinas for President?
On Friday, the Texas Board of Education approved sweeping changes to the state's social studies curriculum. These reforms will put a markedly conservative stamp on history and economic textbooks for years to come, and it will have wide-reaching consequences for the national textbook market because Texas is the second largest purchaser of high school textbooks. According to the New York Times, the changes were made on the 10 to 5 party-in vote and they are intended to stress "the superiority of American capitalism, question the Founding Fathers' commitment to a purely secular government and present Republican political philosophies in a more positive light."
The new Texas social studies standards mark only the most recent chapter in the culture wars, which have until recently remained dormant for the last couple of years. Some of the changes made are not that objectionable, at least not for me. For example, one change includes the addition of Milton Friedman and Fredrick von Hayek, whose work have had an enormous impact on the direction of economic theory and helped justify the massive efforts to deregulate the economy the last 30 years, to the usual list of economists studied, which already includes Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes. Another relatively benign change, is new emphasis on the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, which again is something that cannot be ignored especially because of its indelible impact on the modern state. Even the inclusion of the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers during the civil rights movement is intellectually defensible so long as the Panther's relative influence within the largely non-violent movement is kept in proper perspective.
